If the allegations are false, it’s quite simple. Answer the questions honestly, and your story will match those told by your colleagues. The only reason to refuse to answer questions is because you know you’ll incriminate yourself – in which case refusing to answer is every bit as troublesome as admitting you’ve done wrong.

If this was an employment matter, however, Briatore would be onto an absolute winner in any unfair dismissal case (tribunal or court) because the FIA has failed to observe the principles of natural justice, never mind any questions of procedure, proportionality or law. He wasn’t even the defendent at the hearing!

I would expect any case by Briatore to be a damages claim to a civil court based on such matters as the FIA’s failure to provide a proper opportunity for defence/reply, procedural failing, lack of transparency, potential/probable bias, unfair treatment and leaking of sensitive and damaging documents to the press. There is also the question of whether the effective ban falls within the FIA’s authority, as it has not revoked any license but threatened third parties with sanctions if they employ Briatore.

I still see the restraint of trade case as fairly weak (though by no means unarguable). The IndyCar analogy referred to by Murray does not hold in my view because the FIA’s actions in that instance were born out of a rivalry between two commercial entities and preventing drivers from plying their legitimate trade with a rival outfit was very clearly an abuse of its power. Briatore’s ‘ban’ is a punishment for wrongdoing (much as athletes can be banned for doping) but is questionable for the reasons in the last paragraph.

A commercial or sports lawyer with knowledge of international law would have a better insight. Anyone out there?

I believe, but stand to be corrected, that whilst the FIA said he was not part of the conspiracy, did they ever say he knew nothing of it?

Thoughts…

As the pro in all of this, although I accept the limitations of your speciality, can you point us in the direction of Briatore’s options with regards the hearing?

One assumes he would not have been aware of all the evidence before the hearing, would have not been able to mount a ‘defence’ as a plea had already been accepted, and would have been left with just a bit of mitigation.

My feeling is that his legal advice would have been to stay away and fight on a ground of his choosing. The suprise Witness X would have been quite a shock.

It is a difficult call. It is beyond my ability to suggest a viable way of improving matters in F1. Whilst the ACO method of ‘graduated’ enforcement works well in LM and LMES I can’t see it being transferable to F1. Thee are many critics of the ACO, apart from Peugeot fans of course, but from a fan’s point of view, the entertainment is what matters.

With regards to the mechanic with a limp, no one wanted to see a car removed from the circuit just because of a damaged propshaft, even one so far down the field. No one complained and the marshall earned himself a momento, a buckled propshaft. The fans for that particular marque, of which there were thousands, were given a respite from misery.

The ACO seems to think that the results are not that important. It’s the show that counts.

There are lots of arguments against this philosophy, especially suggesting that the best drivers/car/team combination might not win. And that is undeniably true. However, with the likes of channel 13, moveable devices, bargeboards oversize and such (I’m not deliberately picking teams a certain driver frequented) the same goes for F1.

I suppose it is all down to your question: where do you draw the line? I apologise for not even attempting to answer it other than saying that the line is in the wrong position in F1.